dossier_group_certify

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false). The description adds value by revealing the combined create+certify behavior, the required prior states, and the polling requirement. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether the evidence group is modified) or authorization needs. Given the lack of detailed annotations, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (three sentences). The first sentence states the core action, the second lists prerequisites, and the third provides an instruction and return behavior. Every sentence earns its place without fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool complexity (7 params, prerequisites, polling return), the description covers the basic workflow: how to call it and what to expect. However, it lacks details on error conditions (e.g., what if the evidence group is not sealed?), alternative outcomes, and handling of optional parameters. It is minimally adequate but not thorough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only instructs on the `id` parameter ('Generate a UUID v4 string for `id`') and implies caseFileId and evidenceGroupId from prerequisites. The remaining 4 parameters (name, language, modelId, evidenceIds) are not described. This fails to fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation, providing only marginal additional meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states 'Creates AND certifies a dossier from a single sealed evidence group in one call (express path).' It clearly identifies the verb (creates and certifies), the resource (dossier), and the specific source (sealed evidence group). This differentiates it from sibling tools like dossier_create and dossier_certify, which are separate steps.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description lists prerequisites: evidence_seal (CLOSED), case_file_create → caseFileId, evidence_group_create → evidenceGroupId. It also instructs to generate a UUID v4 for `id` and to poll until CERTIFIED. However, it does not explicitly state when _not_ to use this tool (e.g., when needing to add evidence later or when certification should be deferred). The guidance is strong but lacks exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.